Author
Topic: Benedict XVI--Savior of Tradition? (Read 4641 times)

It appears that the Latin trads are deeply offended as to Pope Benedict's concession to the liberalokrats in the Curia as per his first Pontifical Sermon. This concession was basically a validation of the Second Vatican Council and ecumenism. Do you think Benedict is toting the line until he gains more influence in the Curia and around the world, or are we seeing the real man himself? I think that the biggest issues on the plate for the Latin trads are the reconciliation of the SSPX, and the re-institution of the liturgical forms ala Trent. What do you think about this? Is Benedict a wolf veiled in the skin of a sheep or is he about ready to transform the Latin Church into the glory of its pre-conciliar days?

It appears that the Latin trads are deeply offended as to Pope Benedict's concession to the liberalokrats in the Curia as per his first Pontifical Sermon. This concession was basically a validation of the Second Vatican Council and ecumenism. Do you think Benedict is toting the line until he gains more influence in the Curia and around the world, or are we seeing the real man himself? I think that the biggest issues on the plate for the Latin trads are the reconciliation of the SSPX, and the re-institution of the liturgical forms ala Trent. What do you think about this? Is Benedict a wolf veiled in the skin of a sheep or is he about ready to transform the Latin Church into the glory of its pre-conciliar days?

Apparently it was Cardinal Ratz that wrote the apology to the Jews for the late Pope... I think his ecumenism is genuine, but i also believe he is very traditional on the social issues of the day..In Xc, Kizyz

Well at first i was relieved when i heard about him elected as the Pope Benedict but a little research scared me alot.

First of all this man background, secondly he does have a very poor opinion about Orthodoxy and some say he might even hate Orthodoxy.

Now i have a bad feeling about him and what is to come in the near future. Can he be the last Pope? The man who destroys the Catholic Church and invent a new religion?

He is 79 im sure a lot of serious developments are comming soon and we must be prepared.

Is it me or since 2001 things just keep getting darker and darker each day? I can feel the evil almost everywhere in this world these days, while the '90s look like a big marshmallow party in my memories.

ANd giving him a nickname as a rottweiler sounds not to christian to me the opposite i would say .

To me, he seems like a man who is capable of commanding the masses into a terrible frenzy.

I think this is ridiculous. It's obvious that nobody has a good picture of what kind of a pope he will be. I think it's not unreasonable to expect that he's going to press for ecclesiastical discipline. But ecumenical impulses? This is the same man who is said to favor overtures towards other denominations, and yet has opined that Dominus Iesus teaches that Apostolicae Curae is infallible. It just doesn't add up to a coherent image.

Any man in a powerful position with ultraconservative beliefs (ie Hitler, and not just Ratzinger) is capable of turning the masses into a frenzy. This Pope really reminds me the old church-centered (rather than faith-centered) Popes of the first millenium of the Church.

Quote

I think this is ridiculous. It's obvious that nobody has a good picture of what kind of a pope he will be.

Some of you might not have been born when, as 35-year old priest-theologian, the then Fr. Ratzinger attended Vatican II (1962-1965) as a consultor, like the late Pope John Paul II. Along with his older brother Georg, he was ordained priest in 1951. He was a member, by force of law under Nazi Germany, of the Hitler Youth when he was barely 14 but returned to the seminary right after WWII.

In 1972, together with Hans Urs von Balthasar, Henry De Lubac and others, he launched the Catholic theological journal "Communio," a quarterly review of Catholic theology and culture. It has been said that this was done in repsonse to the misinterpretation of the Second Vatican Council by Karl Rahner, Hans Kung and others, as represented by the theological journal "Concilium. "

He was appointed the Prefect of CDF in 1981 and held that position up to the death of his predecessor. He also was elected by his peers as Dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals in 2002, under which he, by (Catholic) canon law, was the highest ranking Church hierarch and, consequently, the officiating prelate during the funeral mass of Pope John Paul II. As caretaker "government," he led the College of Cardinals during the sede vacante of the Holy See or interregnum culminating at the Conclave that elected him Supreme Pontiff.

He is a theologian, having been a university professor of Fundamental Theology and, later, Dogmatic Theology and has written numerous books and articles. Additionally, he speaks 10 languages including Latin, Italian, French, and English.

With this background, he comes out as a doctrinaire, traditional, and an orthodox Catholic. But we do not know what his pontificate will be. We just have to wait a few more years.

Is it me or since 2001 things just keep getting darker and darker each day? I can feel the evil almost everywhere in this world these days, while the '90s look like a big marshmallow party in my memories.

The Devil was at work in the 90's. Have you heard of MTV or Bill Clinton?

I hate to go round spreading fear... and loose credibility saying this.... but watch out for the Eastern Alliance.

Today the Communists and Islamic Radicals are subtly arming for WWIII. China Iran, N.Korea, and Russia, have formed alliances... (The Book Unrestricted Warfare shows that China has connections with Bin Laden) So yeah, the state of the world is bad.

If these threats ever materialize (I pray they don't) just know that the Pope is a good guy. An ally for Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant alike. If we cling to Jesus, everything will be okay.

Geopolitics, who the antichrist is or may not be and whose side God is really on are not accessible to us in this life. So unless the the good old USof A does something like outlaw Christianity or actively persecute Orthodox Christians I think I will side with my country against such an alliance.

This country has been very good to me. In no other country on earth could you practice you r Greek Orthodoxy so freely except for in Greece itself.There is alot wrong in America that is morally corrupt that has nothing to do with our government per say, but more with the culture we have produced; our governmnet does things wrong and I don't agree with all its policies (as I would disagree with any governmnet at points), but I believe the experiment of 1776 and its improvement with the constitution of 1789 was unprecedented and has lead to far more good than harm.

Enemies all over Earth are working to destroy good old USA and Christian values.Then also anti-christ along with Islamic countries and China and Iran and N. Korea are threatening every American family. Let’s don’t forget Rome too, Vatican enemy never sleeps; Pope is always spinning the cocoon of evil.

Brothers and sisters, at times like this I wonder what happened to normal human beings ? Are they an extinct species ?

Ancient Greeks believed that there was a place near Olympia site that was the center of the Earth, it was called “omphalus”/umbilicus of Earth. This was reckoned as the center of Earth.

Today several nations on Earth think that they are exactly the same thing: the umbilicus of Earth, the center of Earth over which everything else rotates around. Everything else must be in mandatory relation with them, by either a love or hate relationship.

Some people say that Islamic countries are like that, along with Iran, N. Korea, Vatican state.

Is USA one of them? I am asking because I think several frightened people are implying this idea in their posts.

This country has been very good to me. In no other country on earth could you practice you r Greek Orthodoxy so freely except for in Greece itself.There is alot wrong in America that is morally corrupt that has nothing to do with our government per say, but more with the culture we have produced; our governmnet does things wrong and I don't agree with all its policies (as I would disagree with any governmnet at points), but I believe the experiment of 1776 and its improvement with the constitution of 1789 was unprecedented and has lead to far more good than harm.

Well, I am certainly not a republican; however, I do not believe that the American republic even successfully upheld her own founding principles:

'That to secure these Rights [Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness], Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.'

It would seem to me that this American ideal died on April 9, 1865 near Appomattox Courthouse in Virginia. Either way you look at it, whether you are judging this country by the standards of the Church or by or by this country's own principles, this great American experiment would seem to have met with something less than success. Even if I shared your loyalities to republican ideals, which I do not, that would not translate, for me, to loyality to the federal government of these United States.

I would agree to a certain point. Unfortunately, the concessions of war tend to become institutionalized and the federal government grows beyond its constitutional bounds and its practical bounds for efficient governing.

1865 tended to obscure states rights

the 2 World Wars extended the federal government's power way too far in terms of taxation

WWII created a leviathan of a bureaucracy - a shadow gevernment in and of itself

I think in retrospect, 9-11 will have done to individual rights what the War Between the States did to states rights; on that day, I grieved for that loss literally as much as I grieved for the victims

Then there is the fifth collumn of immorality and promiscuity in our land that uses the courts and the legislatures to force itself upon the rest of the populace, which, coupled with our instictive individualism and respect for individual rights allows many otherwise good-hearted and moral Americans to support these warped efforts and viewpoints to the point where we ourselves become the embattled minority

One other thing, America's immoral institution of slavery and apartheid (I won't even get into the genocide against Native Americans) lead to over-reaching federal legislation to correct the problems. All because America's churches did not address the sin and call its people to genuine repentance before God. Unrepentant, church-going racists (in the North and South) needed the strong arm of Big Brother to bring them into line.

I would agree to a certain point. Unfortunately, the concessions of war tend to become institutionalized and the federal government grows beyond its constitutional bounds and its practical bounds for efficient governing.

1865 tended to obscure states rights

the 2 World Wars extended the federal government's power way too far in terms of taxation

WWII created a leviathan of a bureaucracy - a shadow gevernment in and of itself

I think in retrospect, 9-11 will have done to individual rights what the War Between the States did to states rights; on that day, I grieved for that loss literally as much as I grieved for the victims

Then there is the fifth collumn of immorality and promiscuity in our land that uses the courts and the legislatures to force itself upon the rest of the populace, which, coupled with our instictive individualism and respect for individual rights allows many otherwise good-hearted and moral Americans to support these warped efforts and viewpoints to the point where we ourselves become the embattled minority

And it's only been two and a quarter centuries...what will become of us in a millenium?

One other thing, America's immoral institution of slavery and apartheid (I won't even get into the genocide against Native Americans) lead to over-reaching federal legislation to correct the problems. All because America's churches did not address the sin and call its people to genuine repentance before God. Unrepentant, church-going racists (in the North and South) needed the strong arm of Big Brother to bring them into line.

I have nothing against this 'Big Brother' figure, I simply suggest we let the Bishops of the Church choose him and call him 'His Imperial Majesty.'

In regard to the question posed by the original poster, I do not yet know what to expect from Pope Benedict XVI. From what I have read, he is a "conservative" (whatever that may be), but during Vatican II he was known as a "liberal." Whatever he is, he certainly will displease traditionalists. If you are Latin Rite Catholic and have researched the old Tridentine Mass, you will recognize a vast difference between it and the so-called Novus Ordo Mass, which is the primary Mass of the Latin Rite today.

The changes made during Vatican II had ecumenism in mind, and many traditionalists believe that, in furthering ecumenical dialogue with Protestants, the Catholic Church went too far. While key Catholic ideas such as the Real Presence, the Sacrafice of the Mass, the Intercession of Saints, the special dignity of the Virgin Mary are all still present, they are now de-emphasized in the Mass. The altar is gone, and there is now a table-altar, which is almost identical to those used by Anglicans, Lutherans, etc. for the Eucharist. Many Catholics today do not fully understand the significance of the Mass, and so they end up seeing less difference between Catholicism and the Protestant religions. I highly doubt that Pope Benedict XVI will do away with the Novus Ordo Mass; however, I believe that he will make the Novus Ordo Mass more traditional in its wording in order to stifle the Tridentine Latin Mass and to avoid mingling Catholicism too much with Protestantism.

It is highly unlikely that Benedict XVI will return the Church to a pre-Vatican II Catholicism centered on the Tridentine Latin Mass. To do so would cause enormous schism(s) between those who believe Vatican II is a God-send and is ecumenical, and those who believe that, 1) Vatican II is not ecumenical, and 2) Vatican II must be interpretted in such a way that it corresponds with the decisions made by previous ecumenical councils.

I don't think we can say if Benedict XVI is a wolf in sheep's clothing or not. The Western Church at present is in great turmoil. The implementations of post-Vatican II bishops has, in my opinion, undermined the faith rather than bolstered it. The Catholicity of the Mass is diluted, modernism is invading Catholic universities and seminaries, there is less attention to the sacraments, an increase in Protestant influences--hymns, worship styles ("charismatic") and mindset ("Everyone who believes in Jesus Christ, be he Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox goes to heaven") and essentially the removal of all things "too Catholic" from the sanctuary. The Pope has to be careful, because he knows that if he goes too far, it will become obvious that the Western Church has completely departed from the Apostolic Faith, whereas if he doesn't go far enough, many people will leave the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is growing in places like Africa and India, but it is losing its foothold in the prosperous European nations. Benedict XVI certainly wants to recover these lost modernists in Europe. The question is: how will he do it? Will it be through compromising the Catholic faith (and therefore laying bare that the Western Church is not the true Church), or will he risk the loss of more "progressive" minded Catholics by not making certain concessions to them?

The Pope is walking on a tightrope. If he continues to reinforce the traditional Catholic positions on the celibate priesthood, contraception, abortion, female clergy, etc. he will most likely lose many Catholics; and in 1st world nations the priest per parishoner ratio will become worse. If he lets some Catholic positions slide, then the Catholic Church may grow, but it will be at the cost of many traditional Catholics, and the pope will truly be the Antichrist if through certain changes he leads over a billion Catholics away from the Catholic faith, and possibly into sin.

I speak these opinions as a Latin Rite Catholic who is at the moment sympathetic to Orthodoxy, and, to a lesser degree, SSPX. I believe that Orthodoxy has maintained the seed of faith insofar as the essentials of the faith, but I do have some worries about what I have heard some Orthodox say on contraception, abortion, ect.--ideas which I find completely contrary to the extremely strict and passionless moral guidelines of the early Church.

Next year I begin my studies in Catholic theology. I hope to gain a better understanding of what the Catholic Church has taught in the past and what it teaches today. If, in the next few years, the Catholic Church oversteps the line on moral or doctrinal theology (as it has almost happened in ecumenical publications) then I certainly will more fully consider converting to Orthodoxy.

Pope Benedict XVI in his first window appearance, has called for continued efforts towards Catholic and Orthodox unity: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/05/01/pope.sunday.ap/ That the springtime for the Church, as Pope John Paul II stated, finally come, which I think is the dream of many in both Churches.

Pope Benedict XVI in his first window appearance, has called for continued efforts towards Catholic and Orthodox unity: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/05/01/pope.sunday.ap/ That the springtime for the Church, as Pope John Paul II stated, finally come, which I think is the dream of many in both Churches.

Yes, this is very much true: The Western Church dearly wants to better relations with the Eastern Church. However, as nice as a Western-Eastern Church reunion would be, we nevertheless have to recognize the difficult circumstances which still separate East and West.

Both sides at to a degree at fault in failing to achieve union. The West is primarily at fault because, for much of the past several centuries, it has been the policy of the Western Church to attempt to convert the Orthodox, first in the Balkans and later in Slavic territories. The general understanding among many Catholic theologians today is that Orthodox theology is undeveloped, that the Orthodox, ever since abandoning Rome, have lacked the necessary leadership to convene councils, and basically that the Orthodox need the superior scholarly traditions of the Western Church. The West sees the East as too obstinate and closed-minded in its rejection of Western beliefs.

The Eastern Church, too, I think, has its faults. For one, it condemns the so-called heresies of the West, but at the same time it can't clearly define its own position on serious matters. For example, if I am to judge from Meyendorff et al's collection of essays on the "Primacy of Peter," the Orthdox Church has a very crude understanding of ecclesiology. Even the Orthodox scholars admit to the fact that Orthodox ecclesiology is still underdeveloped. How is Rome to take Orthodox theology seriously when it cannot be clearly defined?

One of the areas of ambiguity in the Orthodox Church is in its moral theology. Although I do not claim to have a comprehensive understanding of how strongly the Orthodox Church upholds moral rigor, I do know that a strict morality has always been a part of both the Western and Eastern traditions. The early Christians were puritanical compared to many Chrisitans today, and when one reads Irenaeus, Theophilus, Clement of Alexandria, etc. one cannot help but notice the emphasis on asceticism, moderation, and impassionate living. And yet, I have heard some pretty scary incidences of Orthodox leniency in the case of marriage. I can understand that the Orthodox Church, since it does not draw from Augustine the same way as does the West, is not as sex-guilt-conscious as is the Western Church. However, I have heard several Orthodox say that "birth control" is all right, which I find difficult to accept given what I have read about the early Church. Now, I know that many Orthodox firmly reject birth control, but the fact that some clergy and lay support it while others don't, while there is no consensus on the Orthodox Church's final position, does cloud Orthodox morality. I hope that the Orthodox bishops finally meet soon for an 8th ecumenical council, during which they can address modernism and the Church. I think that, were the Orthodox to do this and were to get a firm common ground of Orthodox understanding, they would make a fine contender to the Catholic Church; and perhaps, if the Western Church becomes less solid, many Western Christians will convert to Orthodoxy. oncessions to the East.

The Eastern Church, too, I think, has its faults. For one, it condemns the so-called heresies of the West, but at the same time it can't clearly define its own position on serious matters. For example, if I am to judge from Meyendorff et al's collection of essays on the "Primacy of Peter," the Orthdox Church has a very crude understanding of ecclesiology. Even the Orthodox scholars admit to the fact that Orthodox ecclesiology is still underdeveloped. How is Rome to take Orthodox theology seriously when it cannot be clearly defined?

To be fair, however, the specifics of Rome's primacy was never clearly defined even before the schism, when Rome itself was still Orthodox. If there had been a consensus on what that primacy actually was, the schism would have been far less likely to occur. It's much easier to assert an erroneous claim in the absence of a position on it than when the Church has already spoken on the matter, after all. Post-schism is a moot point. Without Rome in the Church, there was hardly a compelling reason to define what that primacy was.

Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great

Yes, this is very much true: The Western Church dearly wants to better relations with the Eastern Church. However, as nice as a Western-Eastern Church reunion would be, we nevertheless have to recognize the difficult circumstances which still separate East and West.

Both sides at to a degree at fault in failing to achieve union. The West is primarily at fault because, for much of the past several centuries, it has been the policy of the Western Church to attempt to convert the Orthodox, first in the Balkans and later in Slavic territories. The general understanding among many Catholic theologians today is that Orthodox theology is undeveloped, that the Orthodox, ever since abandoning Rome, have lacked the necessary leadership to convene councils, and basically that the Orthodox need the superior scholarly traditions of the Western Church. The West sees the East as too obstinate and closed-minded in its rejection of Western beliefs.

The Eastern Church, too, I think, has its faults. For one, it condemns the so-called heresies of the West, but at the same time it can't clearly define its own position on serious matters. For example, if I am to judge from Meyendorff et al's collection of essays on the "Primacy of Peter," the Orthdox Church has a very crude understanding of ecclesiology. Even the Orthodox scholars admit to the fact that Orthodox ecclesiology is still underdeveloped. How is Rome to take Orthodox theology seriously when it cannot be clearly defined?

One of the areas of ambiguity in the Orthodox Church is in its moral theology. Although I do not claim to have a comprehensive understanding of how strongly the Orthodox Church upholds moral rigor, I do know that a strict morality has always been a part of both the Western and Eastern traditions. The early Christians were puritanical compared to many Chrisitans today, and when one reads Irenaeus, Theophilus, Clement of Alexandria, etc. one cannot help but notice the emphasis on asceticism, moderation, and impassionate living. And yet, I have heard some pretty scary incidences of Orthodox leniency in the case of marriage. I can understand that the Orthodox Church, since it does not draw from Augustine the same way as does the West, is not as sex-guilt-conscious as is the Western Church. However, I have heard several Orthodox say that "birth control" is all right, which I find difficult to accept given what I have read about the early Church. Now, I know that many Orthodox firmly reject birth control, but the fact that some clergy and lay support it while others don't, while there is no consensus on the Orthodox Church's final position, does cloud Orthodox morality. I hope that the Orthodox bishops finally meet soon for an 8th ecumenical council, during which they can address modernism and the Church. I think that, were the Orthodox to do this and were to get a firm common ground of Orthodox understanding, they would make a fine contender to the Catholic Church; and perhaps, if the Western Church becomes less solid, many Western Christians will convert to Orthodoxy. oncessions to the East.

St. George, I have always felt similarly on both the east and west issues. I think part of the problem goes back to the canons themselves which were written in response to an issue, but not to address future questions... ie. they were written always after the fact and were very specific in the instances they quoted that were being addressed. So in the absence of a past canon and no way to write new ones, we have this 'gray area'... during a time where we have lots of strange crazy issues emerging...ie. euthanasia, cloning, gay marriage, etc... and while there are 'statement's of various hierarchs on the topics it is sort of a fuzzy thing...with people trying to connect old canons to the modern issues... and without the ability to meet on these types of issues as an ecumenical group, they stay 'fuzzy'... For example, if cloning is considered wrong but is done,does that then mean the child cannot be baptized Orthodox??...What about In vitro fertilization? or surrogate parenting...?